Search

Begin New Search Topic European Union Author Dyuti Pandya

1. Quantum Technology: A Policy Primer for EU Policymakers

Author:
Oscar Guinea, Dyuti Pandya, Oscar du Roy, and Andrea Dugo
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
Quantum technology is rapidly emerging as a transformative force with the potential to reshape industries ranging from finance and pharmaceuticals to automotive and aerospace. In 2024 alone, investments in quantum technology reached over USD 56 billion. Its development, however, presents unique geopolitical challenges, stemming from its applications in defence and encryption, as well as its power to unsettle established comparative advantages and market specialisations across countries. Against this backdrop, an open and collaborative approach to quantum innovation is critical for maximising the benefits of this technology. Countries perform more effectively in quantum technology when they support cross-border collaborations and market specialisation. Firms producing quantum hardware or software solutions can sell to a range of industrial users who, in turn, integrate these cutting-edge systems into goods and services. Such synergy reduces the overall risks and costs of R&D, as different partners share both the financial burden and any uncertainties related to the commercial viability of quantum applications. Moreover, collaboration fosters a wider diffusion of quantum technologies. As firms specialising in quantum computing, communication, or sensing deepen their expertise, their insights permeate adjacent sectors through the shared knowledge enabled by joint collaborations. Conversely, restrictive policies that limit interaction between domestic and foreign firms risk stifling innovation. Self-reliance strategies reduce opportunities for knowledge-sharing, limit the pool of potential partners, and ultimately slow the pace of quantum breakthroughs. This operating framework supports the current EU approach to quantum technology, which emphasises openness and encourages a higher number of collaborations between EU and non-EU companies. This approach is grounded in economic realities: the EU ranks second only to the US in terms of the number of companies and collaborations between firms and it thrives on partnering with non-EU countries as the number of collaborations with companies outside the EU far exceeds the number of collaborations within the EU.
Topic:
European Union, Digital Economy, Digital Policy, and Quantum Computing
Political Geography:
Europe

2. Cybersecurity at Risk: How the EU’s Digital Markets Act Could Undermine Security across Mobile Operating Systems

Author:
Matthias Bauer and Dyuti Pandya
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The EU’s fight against cybersecurity threats risks being undermined by the over-enforcement of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). Article 5(4) could force mobile operating system providers to allow unregulated external links, bypassing critical security controls and exposing millions of smartphone users to cyber threats. The DMA focuses on market structure, overlooking how differences in operating system design affect security vulnerabilities. A one-size-fits-all approach ignores platform-specific security needs, leaving European users exposed to cyber threats. This risks undermining the EU’s economic security agenda, including initiatives like the Cybersecurity Strategy, Cyber Resilience Act, and NIS2 Directive, which aim to strengthen digital defences. The unintended consequences of this regulatory approach are already evident in Apple’s recent decisions to withhold certain features – such as advanced AI functionalities and enhanced app security tools – from the EU market due to DMA-related concerns. As a result, EU consumers face reduced access to innovative technologies, diminished user experiences, and weaker security protections compared to users in other regions. Now, Android, a widely used open-source system, may also be compromised by DMA enforcement, potentially limiting its flexibility, security, and the broader ecosystem of app developers and device manufacturers that rely on its open architecture.
Topic:
European Union, Cybersecurity, Digital Economy, and Digital Markets Act (DMA)
Political Geography:
Europe

3. The Impact of Increased Mass Litigation in Europe

Author:
Fredrik Erixon, Oscar Guinea, Dyuti Pandya, Vanika Sharma, Elena Sisto, Oscar du Roy, Renata Zilli, and Philipp Lamprecht
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The purpose of this study is to better understand the growth of mass litigation in the European Union (EU) and its economic consequences. European authorities have long encouraged consumers to seek redress through private litigation in European competition law and, more recently, they have shifted their focus towards collective actions in a broad range of areas, including data privacy and product liability. Facilitating access to justice through collective actions is not a cost-free option. Unfortunately, there is a lack of economic analysis on the consequences of an increase in collective action cases in the EU. It is crucial to understand the economic consequences of a “mixed regime” – that is, a regime based on both ex-ante public enforcement through regulation and ex-post enforcement through private litigation. The combination of these two enforcement models raises questions about how the system is intended to work together and what the consequences might be for the economy. This study examines the economic implications of these developments in the EU.
Topic:
Law, European Union, Regulation, Regional Economy, and Litigation
Political Geography:
Europe

4. Boosting Efficiency and Quality in EU Public Services: The Need for a European Multi-Cloud-First Strategy

Author:
Matthias Bauer, Andrea Dugo, Dyuti Pandya, Vanika Sharma, and Elena Sito
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
EU governments have an unprecedented opportunity to unlock up to EUR 450 billion in annual fiscal savings by modernising public services through advanced multi-cloud solutions, cloud-based AI, and other deep tech innovations. As estimated in this study, this figure highlights the transformative impact of digitised government services – not only in improving service quality and operational efficiency but also in generating substantial fiscal gains that would enhance Europe’s economic competitiveness. Multi-cloud adoption is not merely an infrastructure choice but a strategic enabler of modern, agile, and citizen-focused public services. To fully capitalise on cloud adoption, EU governments should embrace a multi-cloud strategy that integrates different public cloud providers and, where necessary, also incorporates sovereign or private cloud environments. Cloud services come in many forms, including Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS), Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS), and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS). Each model offers unique value propositions such as ease of use, rapid security updates, scalability, and the capacity to integrate novel technological features, such as AI applications, seamlessly.
Topic:
European Union, Digital Economy, and Cloud Computing
Political Geography:
Europe

5. EU Export of Regulatory Overreach: The Case of the Digital Markets Act (DMA)

Author:
Matthias Bauer, Dyuti Pandya, and Vanika Sharma
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) exemplifies the “Brussels Effect,” extending the EU’s regulatory influence beyond its borders and shaping global digital competition policies. While intended to curb the market power of large technology platforms and promote fair competition, its broad, rigid, and pre-emptive approach risks stifling technological development, deterring investment, and creating legal uncertainty, particularly in emerging markets still building digital infrastructure and seeking to attract foreign investment. Large technology firms play a pivotal role in global economic development, driving innovation, infrastructure upgrading, and consumer welfare. However, increasing regulatory scrutiny, particularly under DMA-like frameworks, could inadvertently harm the very markets they help grow by imposing compliance burdens that hinder business expansion and technology diffusion. Countries with weaker institutions and regulatory capacity – such as India, Brazil, South Africa, and other emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs) like Indonesia – could face greater risks of regulatory capture, corruption, and enforcement challenges if they replicate the EU’s approach without adapting it to their economic realities (Section 2). A key concern with the DMA is the departure from traditional case-by-case enforcement in competition policy, instead relying on broad, pre-emptive obligations based on ambiguous concepts such as fairness and contestability. This shift reduces legal certainty, increases the risk of inconsistent enforcement, and may inhibit dynamic competition, which is essential for innovation-driven sectors like fintech, e-commerce, ICT, and edtech. By prioritising static over dynamic competition, the DMA could impede technological progress, limiting consumer choice and long-term economic benefits (Section 3). The global adoption of DMA-like regulations risks further regulatory fragmentation and may create unintended consequences, particularly in emerging economies where regulatory frameworks, institutional quality, and market structures differ significantly from the EU. Broad prohibitions on business practices, such as self-preferencing and data-sharing, could limit opportunities for local firms to scale internationally, weaken cybersecurity protections, and reduce incentives for large technology firms to invest in these regions (Section 4). To ensure proportionate and effective competition enforcement, governments outside the EU should prioritise regulatory flexibility and case-by-case assessments over broad, static restrictions. OECD best practices on competition policy emphasise clear objectives, legal certainty, and regulatory proportionality, ensuring that competition enforcement supports, rather than stifles, innovation and investment (Section 5). Moreover, the risks of corruption and regulatory overreach in developing countries make broad ex-ante regulations especially problematic. Excessive discretionary power granted to local authorities could increase the risk of politically motivated enforcement, deter foreign investment, and undermine long-term economic growth. A more effective approach would be to strengthen institutional frameworks, enhance transparency, and adopt supply-side policies that support technology neutrality, free trade, and economic freedom.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Regulation, Digital Markets Act (DMA), and Economic Competition
Political Geography:
Europe

6. Collective Action in the Netherlands: Why It Matters for the Transposition of the Product Liability Directive

Author:
Oscar Guinea, Dyuti Pandya, and Vanika Sharma
Publication Date:
06-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
This policy brief explores the implications of the Netherlands’ transposition of the new EU Product Liability Directive (PLD), focusing on its interaction with the Dutch collective action system. As one of the first EU countries to implement PLD and a key hub for mass litigation, the Netherlands offers a compelling case study. Features such as low claim thresholds, opt-out mechanisms, flexible settlements, limited cost-shifting, and the ease of creating litigation-backed entities make the Netherlands particularly attractive for mass claims, reinforcing its reputation as a “litigation magnet.” The new PLD simplifies liability claims, broadens the definition of “product” to include software, digital files, and related services, lowers evidentiary thresholds, extends liability to third-party actions such as cyberattacks, and includes post-market defects. These provisions, combined with the Netherlands’ collective redress regime, are expected to drive a rise in mass litigation. This rise poses particular economic risks for the Netherlands, one of the EU’s most digitised economies. Ranked sixth in digital adoption by Eurostat’s Digital Intensity Index, Dutch firms – especially in finance, insurance, ICT, and manufacturing – may also face growing exposure to collective actions under the PLD, which extends liability across the entire value chain. These sectors account for 27 percent of the value added in the Dutch market economy and are widely recognised as key drivers of economic growth. Increased legal uncertainty may also reduce the Netherlands’ attractiveness to multinational corporations, threatening levels of foreign direct investment and employment, both essential pillars of the Dutch economy. Growing mass litigation may also hinder innovation by redirecting R&D resources toward legal risk management. This is particularly concerning for the Netherlands, one of the EU’s top R&D investors. Drawing on US evidence, large-scale litigation can significantly erode market capitalisation, and based on our estimates, the cumulative loss in value for 31 Dutch companies featured in the EU R&D Scoreboard could reach €5.5 billion under the high-growth scenario. Such declines could impact household wealth, as Dutch households save approximately 14.6 percent of their gross disposable income, of which 20 percent is invested in equity. Pension funds, which also play a central role in Dutch long-term savings, can also hold significant stakes in publicly traded Dutch companies. As a result, the effects of collective actions on the market value of Dutch companies extend beyond corporate balance sheets, posing potential negative consequences for Dutch savers, as well as current and future pensioners. This report was commissioned by the European Justice Forum, a coalition of businesses, individuals and organisations that are working to build fair, balanced, transparent and efficient civil justice laws and systems for both consumers and businesses in Europe.
Topic:
European Union, Economy, Litigation, and Liability
Political Geography:
Europe and Netherlands

7. The Impact of Increased Mass Litigation in the UK

Author:
Oscar Guinea, Dyuti Pandya, Vanika Sharma, and Renata Zilli
Publication Date:
06-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
Over the past decade, the United Kingdom has seen a marked rise in collective litigation, transforming what was once a niche legal, rarely employed, tool into a fast-growing business model with wide-ranging economic implications. At a time when the country seeks to boost investment, support innovation and attract global business, the proliferation of mass litigation risks undermining these ambitions. This study takes a closer look at how mass litigation is reshaping the UK’s legal, business and regulatory landscape – and asks whether the balance between justice and economic efficiency is tipping too far. The UK stands out among European countries for the ease with which mass claims can be launched. It has long provided a favourable environment for consumer representation and dispute resolution, with a strong culture of accountability. But recent years have seen the emergence of a new ecosystem: law firms specialising in group actions; litigation funders offering upfront capital in exchange for a share of awards; and Claims Management Companies (CMCs) that recruit claimants en masse and process high volumes of cases. The business model has proved highly successful, making group litigation an asset class in its own right and pushing collective actions far beyond traditional sectors such as banking and pharmaceuticals. Today, a growing portion of the UK economy is in the firing line – with potentially damaging consequences. This shift has been rapid and striking. From fewer than 10 mass litigation cases in the late 2010s, the UK saw 47 such actions in 2024 alone, more than any other European country. On a per capita basis, the UK ranks as one of the most litigious jurisdictions in Europe, well ahead of comparable economies such as France or Germany. The implications for the UK economy are far-reaching: many of the companies targeted by these actions operate in sectors that were included in the UK Government’s latest industrial strategy as critical to the country’s future economic growth. Whereas previously limited to financial and professional services, mass litigation cases are now rising in UK companies working in life sciences, advanced manufacturing and digital services. These are industries where risk-taking, long product development cycles and data-driven innovation are the norm. The threat of mass litigation introduces uncertainty and cost at exactly the moment when these businesses need regulatory clarity and investment stability. Moreover, claims against public sector entities involve a direct transfer of capital from the tax payer to hedge fund litigation funders. The financial burden is also considerable. Legal fees and returns to funders often consume a large share of total settlements, reducing the compensation that actually reaches affected individuals. In the Post Office Horizon scandal, for example, £46 million in legal fees and funders payments were deducted from a £57 million settlement, leaving a paltry sum of just over £20,000 per claimant. In the recent judgment of Merricks v. Mastercard, £100 million have been allocated to compensate consumers. Affected individuals could receive up to £70 each if only 5 percent claim, but as little as £2.5 if the full class of 44 million comes forward. These figures raise questions about who really benefits from mass litigation. The limited benefits for individual consumers stand in stark contrast to the substantial costs that mass litigation imposes on the UK economy as a whole. Our scenario modelling shows that, under a scenario where the costs of mass litigation are just 30 percent of the current costs in the US, litigation costs in the UK could reach more than half of the claim value; the cost of mass litigation for the UK economy could reach close to £18 billion, and the market capitalisation of the UK’s most innovative companies could fall by £11.2 billion, more than half the announced public investment into R&D in the 2025 Autumn Budget. These financial pressures affect the whole country. While many large companies are headquartered in Greater London, their operations, and the jobs they support, are often spread across the wider regions. This means that the impact of a legal challenge is not just a concern for a corporate boardroom in London, but it impacts local economies and communities across the UK. As the Civil Justice Council reviews the framework for litigation funding, this study provides evidence to inform the debate. It does not argue against collective actions per se but urges a careful weighing of their benefits against broader economic costs. If the UK wants to remain an attractive destination for business, investment, and innovation, it must ensure that its legal infrastructure supports rather than stifles those ambitions.
Topic:
Economics, European Union, Finance, and Litigation
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

8. Strengthening the Supply-Side Innovation in EU Telecommunications

Author:
Fredrik Erixon, Oscar Guinea, and Dyuti Pandya
Publication Date:
06-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The telecommunications sector is central to the EU’s competitiveness, not only providing the infrastructure that underpins digital connectivity but also serving as a key driver of innovation. Recent EU reports already highlight the persistent structural challenges faced by the EU telecommunication sector: market fragmentation, low investment levels, divergent spectrum policies, and an urgent need to bolster digital sovereignty. However, a critical dimension in this discussion often receives far less attention: the supply of the underlying technologies that power telecommunications infrastructure. In this domain, EU companies remain competitive. In 2023, 27 EU-headquartered firms were among the world’s top 2,000 R&D spenders in telecommunications, accounting for 16 percent of global sectoral investment. These figures underscore that, while Europe may lag in investment and infrastructure, it still holds strategic leadership in telecom innovation and technology development. Central to Europe’s success are standard development organisations (SDOs), technical standards, and Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). SDOs provide collaborative forums where companies jointly develop technical standards that ensure interoperability, reduce fragmentation and foster innovation. Complementing this, SEPs protect the innovations embedded within these standards, granting European companies vital licensing revenues that sustain their research efforts. This system is particularly important for EU firms, which tend to be smaller than their global competitors; it enables them to specialise in cutting-edge technology development and commercialise their innovations globally without needing to dominate manufacturing or end-user markets. As competitiveness in telecommunications increasingly depends on the pace and adoption of innovation, the EU faces both a challenge and an opportunity. European firms have the potential not only to supply critical technologies but to drive breakthroughs in connectivity which are linked to the development of other technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) or quantum technologies. However, to stay competitive, the EU must reinforce its position on the supply side, where its companies still operate at the technological frontier.
Topic:
Economics, European Union, Digital Economy, Innovation, and Supply and Demand
Political Geography:
Europe

9. EU Autonomy, the Brussels Effect, and the Rise of Global Economic Protectionism

Author:
Matthias Bauer and Dyuti Pandya
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The Brussels Effect, once emblematic of the EU’s alleged influence in shaping global regulations, has now become a factor contributing to global regulatory fragmentation. The EU must recalibrate its trajectory towards a liberal and rules-based trading order, prioritising widespread regulatory liberalisation to counteract the risks of global protectionism and regulatory spirals. A holistic approach, both internally and globally, is crucial to prevent regulatory and subsidy spirals on a global scale. This recalibration is essential to keep global markets open and enhance the EU’s own economic and technological competitiveness. In response to the 2008 financial crises, the EU underwent a shift in its approach to global trade, transitioning towards Strategic Autonomy. However, this gradual move away from a liberal global trade order has led to increased regulatory burdens and regulatory fragmentation, impacting businesses within and beyond the EU. The Brussels Effect, as denoted in this paper, highlights the EU’s signalling effect on other governments in considering and implementing regulations. This effect has contributed to increased trade restrictiveness and regulatory fragmentation globally. The EU’s insistence on “autonomy” and “European values” not only empowers others to follow suit, contributing to the rise in global protectionism, but also contradicts the EU’s historical support for open trade principles and its commitment to a highly competitive social market economy. A wealth of EU regulatory data reveals a stagnation and, in many cases, a regression in regulatory cooperation within the Single Market. This is evident from rising trade restrictiveness and a tendency towards increased legal fragmentation instead of convergence across the EU. The evolving regulatory acquis of the EU, coupled with insufficient cooperation and stalled trade agreements, poses risks beyond its borders. The EU’s paradigm shift towards autonomy contributes to global regulatory spirals and protectionist measures, particularly evident in services trade. Despite the EU’s historical commitment to harmonisation and liberalisation, many sectors, such as transport and logistics, telecoms, and digital services, have witnessed the imposition of new laws and rules that hinder trade. With the EU’s share of global GDP expected to decrease to 9% by 2050, there is a critical need for EU governments to enhance its regulatory capabilities and foster innovation. To wield influence in global economic diplomacy, EU policymakers must prioritise policies that unleash the collective ingenuity of individuals and businesses that help to maintain high levels of productivity, competitiveness, and prosperity.
Topic:
Globalization, European Union, Economy, Autonomy, Protectionism, and WTO
Political Geography:
Europe

10. Calling on the EU-US Trade and Technology Council: How to Deliver for the Planet and the Economy

Author:
Oscar Guinea, Vanika Sharma, Philipp Lamprecht, Dyuti Pandya, and Oscar du Roy
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
This Policy Brief proposes the establishment of an agreement on conformity assessment between the EU and the US that covers machinery and electrical equipment. The initiative aims to increase the number of European and US conformity assessment bodies authorized to test and certify EU and US machinery and electrical equipment for exports into each other’s markets, without recognizing the equivalency or otherwise altering the product requirements in regulation, standards, or other normative documents on either side. While this study focuses on the economic effects of an agreement on conformity assessment that includes machinery and electrical equipment, the scope of such an agreement could potentially be extended to several additional product categories, particularly those that are subject to requirements for mandatory third-party conformity assessment in both the EU and the US. The increase in the number of conformity assessment bodies is expected to reduce the costs and the time required to demonstrate conformity. If this policy succeeds as expected in achieving a reduction in trade costs between 2 and 6 percent, US exports to the EU are projected to increase between US$ 11 billion and US$ 32.5 billion while EU exports to the US are estimated to grow by between US$ 13.8 billion and US$ 42.2 billion. In percentage terms, US firms are anticipated to experience a larger increase in exports of machinery and electrical equipment than their EU counterparts. The increase in trade flows as a result of this agreement is estimated to be larger than the rise in trade flows achieved in other Free Trade Agreements signed by the EU or the US. Moreover, as an increasing number of EU regulations begin to mandate third-party conformity assessment, US firms will increasingly benefit from this agreement when exporting to the EU. Given China’s status as the largest supplier of machinery and electrical equipment to both the EU and the US, the implementation of an EU-US agreement on conformity assessment would not only improve conditions for transatlantic trade but also lead to reduced trade dependence for the EU and the US on China. The reduction in trade costs between the EU and the US on machinery and electrical equipment due to the agreement could lower Chinese exports to the EU and the US by between US$ 6.5 billion and US$ 19.4 billion. Importantly, machinery and electrical equipment are crucial inputs for some of the key technologies in which the EU and the US Administrations have identified trade dependencies on China. However, in contrast with other policies aimed at reducing reliance on Chinese imports, an agreement on conformity assessment for machinery and electrical equipment will not require public subsidies or impose any financial burden on taxpayers. This agreement also has the potential to benefit the environment. Machinery and electrical equipment are essential inputs for green technologies. Therefore, a reduction in the cost and time of conformity assessment in these industries will accelerate the adoption of green technologies. An agreement on conformity assessment between the EU and the US covering green goods and clean technologies could increase transatlantic exports between US$ 3.1 billion and US$ 9.2 billion. While this increase in exports is significant, broadening the scope of the agreement to include the entirety of machinery and electrical equipment, rather than just a subset, is projected to lead to trade effects eight times larger. Moreover, as green technologies rapidly evolve, an agreement on conformity assessment has the potential to serve as a dynamic instrument that evolves to accommodate future regulatory and economic developments on climate and the environment on both sides of the Atlantic.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Economy, and Trade
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America